BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

140 results for “TDS”+ Section 194C(7)clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai634Delhi578Kolkata372Bangalore273Chennai169Ahmedabad140Jaipur109Hyderabad85Cochin72Chandigarh57Pune55Indore53Raipur49Karnataka48Cuttack47Visakhapatnam45Rajkot40Nagpur38Amritsar29Jodhpur24Surat21Patna19Panaji16Allahabad14Lucknow14Guwahati12Ranchi11Jabalpur11Kerala8Agra7SC5Telangana4Calcutta4Dehradun3Varanasi3Rajasthan2A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1Orissa1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 80I99Section 143(3)88Section 4085Disallowance82Addition to Income63Deduction47Section 143(2)44TDS40Section 194C32Section 271C

EAGLE STEEL INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2871/AHD/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P. K. Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri James Kurian, Sr. D.R
Section 194CSection 194C(6)Section 194C(7)Section 197Section 197ASection 40

TDS Circle 5 . A.Y. 2012-13 in time. Accordingly, the amount of Rs. 26,68,187/- being transportation charges paid/credited in the above mentioned account without complying the provisions of section 194C of the Income-tax Act and without complying the provisions of Section 194C(7

Showing 1–20 of 140 · Page 1 of 7

29
Section 194J23
Depreciation22

ASIAN MILLS PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL.CIT, RANGE-1,,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1397/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1397/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Asian Mills Pvt. Ltd., A.C.I.T., 104, Sakar Iii, Vs. Range-1, Opp. Old High Court, Ahmedabad. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380014. Pan: Aabca8236G & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1531/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 D.C.I.T., Asian Mills Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1(1)(1), Vs. 104, Sakar Iii, Ahmedabad. Opp. Old High Court, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380014. Pan: Aabca8236G

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parin Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr.D.R
Section 194Section 194CSection 194C(6)Section 194C(7)Section 40Section 6Section 7

TDS. The assessee also claimed that by reporting the PAN detail of the transporter in form 26Q it has complied with the provision of sub-section 7 to section 194C

HYDCO ENGINEERING PVT. LTD.,,CHHATRAL vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 2858/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Sept 2018AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)Section 194(7)Section 194CSection 194C(6)Section 234CSection 40

TDS, filing of PAN of the Payee-Transporter alone is sufficient and no confirmation letter as required by the learned CIT is required; (v) Sections 194C(6) and Section 194C(7

CRYSTAL QUINONE PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 1420/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & M/S. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1420/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) बनाम/ Crystal Quinone Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Cir-1(1)(2), Opp. Old Excise Chawky, Vs. Ahmedabad S.M. Road, Ahmedabad

For Appellant: Bandish Soparkar, ARFor Respondent: Santosh Karnani, Sr. DR
Section 145ASection 14ASection 194CSection 40

7 of the order. Thus we are of the view that there is sufficient compliance of sub-section 6 of the section 194C of the Act. 14.2 However, in our considered view, the assessee does not get absolved from its responsibility from the deduction of TDS

SHRI SAMIR CHANDRAVADAB BHALAVAT,,BARODA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SABARKANTHA WARD-4,, MODASA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 216/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Jul 2020AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Manish Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vidhyut Trivedi, Sr. D.R
Section 194CSection 194C(7)Section 40

TDS. Page 4 of 10 Asstt. Year 2010-11 6.3 We also note that the requirement under sub-section 7 of section 194C

SUMMIT (INDIA) WATER TREATMENT & SERVICES LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-4, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1338/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 May 2019AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Sharma, CIT-D.R
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 263Section 271BSection 40

194C or Section 195 could be ascertained. The assessee has only submitted the copses of invoices which can lead to the conclusion that the payment has been made to the said party, but it does not prove that the agent has been covered under the provisions of Section 172 of IT Act. Thus, the contention of the assessee that

SHRI VISHAL D PALANI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, TDS-3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1603/AHD/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Nov 2022AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri M.J. Shah, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 194Section 201Section 201(1)Section 40

7 as under:- “6. We have heard Shri Shah representing assessee and Shri Madhushudhan appearing as Senior Departmental Representative reiterating their respective stands against and in support of the impugned disallowance. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee has not deducted TDS upon the freight payments in question. Both the lower authorities invoke Section 194C

SHRI VISHAL DILIP PALANY,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1410/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Oct 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Vishal Dilip Palani, Income Tax Officer, C/O. Ketan H. Shah, Advocate, Vs Ward 9(4), 903, Sapphire Complex, C.G. Road, Ahmedabad Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan : Alopp 0931 E अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.J. Shah & Shri Rushin Patel, Ars Revenue By : Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 08/09/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/10/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xv, Ahmedabad [“Cit(A) In Short]” Dated 04.02.2013. 2. At The Outset, It Is Noted That There Is A Delay Of 357 Days On The Part Of The Assessee In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit Giving Details Of The Deteriorating Health Of His Father As Well As Financial Problems Faced During The Relevant Period Which Resulted In The Said Delay. Keeping In View The Same, We Are Satisfied That There Was A Sufficient Cause For The Delay Of 357 Days On The Part Of The Assessee In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Learned Departmental Representative Has Not Raised Any Objection In This Regard. We, Therefore, Shri Vishal Dilip Palani Vs. Ito Ay : 2009-10 2

For Appellant: Shri M.J. Shah &For Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

7 as under:- “6. We have heard Shri Shah representing assessee and Shri Madhushudhan appearing as Senior Departmental Representative reiterating their respective stands against and in support of the impugned disallowance. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee has not deducted TDS upon the freight payments in question. Both the lower authorities invoke Section 194C

XCELLON EDUCATION LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, TDS,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2680/AHD/2017[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Mar 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 133ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250(6)Section 271CSection 272A(2)(g)

194C, 194H, 194-I, 194J and 192B and defaulted in ITA No.2678 to 2681/Ahd/2017 (4 Appeals) 3 complying with the TDS provisions. A survey operation under section 133A of the Act was carried out at the business premises of the assessee on 30.11.2015 by the Income Tax Authority of TDS Range, Ahmedabad. During the course of survey, it was observed

XCELLON EDUCATION LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, TDS,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2681/AHD/2017[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Mar 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 133ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250(6)Section 271CSection 272A(2)(g)

194C, 194H, 194-I, 194J and 192B and defaulted in ITA No.2678 to 2681/Ahd/2017 (4 Appeals) 3 complying with the TDS provisions. A survey operation under section 133A of the Act was carried out at the business premises of the assessee on 30.11.2015 by the Income Tax Authority of TDS Range, Ahmedabad. During the course of survey, it was observed

XCELLON EDUCATION LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, TDS,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2678/AHD/2017[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Mar 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 133ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250(6)Section 271CSection 272A(2)(g)

194C, 194H, 194-I, 194J and 192B and defaulted in ITA No.2678 to 2681/Ahd/2017 (4 Appeals) 3 complying with the TDS provisions. A survey operation under section 133A of the Act was carried out at the business premises of the assessee on 30.11.2015 by the Income Tax Authority of TDS Range, Ahmedabad. During the course of survey, it was observed

XCELLON EDUCATION LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. ADDL. CIT, TDS,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2679/AHD/2017[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Mar 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 133ASection 201Section 201(1)Section 250(6)Section 271CSection 272A(2)(g)

194C, 194H, 194-I, 194J and 192B and defaulted in ITA No.2678 to 2681/Ahd/2017 (4 Appeals) 3 complying with the TDS provisions. A survey operation under section 133A of the Act was carried out at the business premises of the assessee on 30.11.2015 by the Income Tax Authority of TDS Range, Ahmedabad. During the course of survey, it was observed

THE ITO,PATAN WARD-3,, MEHSANA vs. M/S. SIDDHI VINAYAK TRANSPORT, MEHSANA

In the result, the Department’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2348/AHD/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jul 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Bains, CIT (D.R.)For Respondent: Shri M.J. Shah, A.R
Section 194ASection 194A(3)(iii)Section 40

7. The learned CIT(A) has held that the amounts in question stood already paid before 31st March of the relevant A.Y. and that in view of “Merilyn Shipping & Transports”, 146 TTJ 1 (Vizag) (SB), no disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) could have been made. 8. In “Sikandar Khan Tanwar” (supra), overruling “Merilyn Shipping & Transports” (supra

SAGAR POWERTEX PVT. LTD. (EARLIER SAGAR AGENCIES PVT.LTD.),AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.CIT, RANGE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed statistical purposes

ITA 304/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.304/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 Sagar Powertex Pvt. Ltd., J.C.I.T., (Earlier Sagar Agencies Pvt. Ltd.) Vs. Range-8, 803, Sahajanand Complex, Ahmedabad. Shahibaug Road, Shahiibaug Ahmedabad-380004. Pan: Aadcs0473P

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr.D.R
Section 14ASection 40Section 80Section 80I

7 12.3 With respect to the other item of assets being mobile and the furniture, we find that the genuineness of such expenses have not been doubted by the authorities below. Furthermore, the amount involved in these assets is of negligible value. Therefore, we are not inclined to uphold the same. In view of the above and after considering

ITO, WARD-2(1) (1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. EYLEX FILMS PVT. LTD., RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 388/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Justice Shri P. P. Bhatt & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar & ShriFor Respondent: Bandish Soparkar, A.Rs
Section 194JSection 194jSection 40Section 9

TDS is required to be deducted for the payment of film distribution share. The relevant extract of the decision is reproduced hereunder:- "6. From the above, it is clear that section 194C would be applicable if any person is making payment of any sum to any resident for carrying out any work. In the case under consideration before

ITO, WARD-2(1) (1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. EYLEX FILMS PVT. LTD., RANCHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1808/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Justice Shri P. P. Bhatt & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar & ShriFor Respondent: Bandish Soparkar, A.Rs
Section 194JSection 194jSection 40Section 9

TDS is required to be deducted for the payment of film distribution share. The relevant extract of the decision is reproduced hereunder:- "6. From the above, it is clear that section 194C would be applicable if any person is making payment of any sum to any resident for carrying out any work. In the case under consideration before

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA vs. M/S. DELOITTE HASKINS & SELLS, BARODA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2970/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2970/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015 D.C.I.T., M/S Deloitee Haskins & Sells, Circle-1(2), Vs. 31-Nutan Bharat Society, Vadodara. Alkapuri, Baroda.

For Appellant: Shri Parcy Padiwala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri James Kurian, D.R
Section 194Section 40

7,39,185/- NIL Grand Total 1,19,90,581/- 60,51,027/- 1,20,705/- 59,51,111/- 11.1 As per the AO the assessee was liable to deduct TDS u/s 194-I of the Act with respect to the Banquet charges at the rate of 10% whereas the assessee has deducted the TDS at the rate

FORTUNE BARODA NETWORK PVT. LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE PR. CIT-1,, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1314/AHD/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Mar 2019AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talati, A.RFor Respondent: Shri N.S.A Khan, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 263Section 40

194C of the Act on payments made to the licensor for obtaining TV signals, Cable TV Network owned by the assessee. Further, the assessee, in his aforementioned reply dated 28/02/2016 , accepted that as this was its first year of-operation and it was unaware of provision of law so there was lapse on its part in the deduction

KIFS SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

ITA 786/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section 111ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 43B

TDS was made as per the provisions of Section 194C and 194J of the Act. The A.O was of the firm belief that the relevant provision applicable on the payments made by the assessee attract section 1941 of the Act. The A.O accordingly disallowed Rs. 7

KIFS SECURITIES LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.CIT, RANGE- 3,, AHMEDABAD

In the result Ground No.9 of the revenue is allowed for

ITA 643/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice P.P.Bhatt & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section 111ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 43B

TDS was made as per the provisions of Section 194C and 194J of the Act. The A.O was of the firm belief that the relevant provision applicable on the payments made by the assessee attract section 1941 of the Act. The A.O accordingly disallowed Rs. 7